From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Spray Subject: Re: [ceph-calamari] disk failure prediction Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:56:25 +0000 Message-ID: <54E5A539.1060803@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55176 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751961AbbBSI42 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:56:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-calamari@ceph.com On 18/02/2015 23:20, Sage Weil wrote: > We wouldn't see > quite the same results since our "raid sets" are effectively entire pools I think we could do better than pool-wide, e.g. if multiple drives in one chassis are at risk (where PG stores at most one copy per chassis), we can identify that as less severe than the general case where multiple at-risk drives might be in the same PG. Making it CRUSH-aware like this would be a good hook for users to take advantage of the ceph/calamari SMART monitoring rather than rolling their own. John